Players who reached SF at GS events - Open era.

Q&M son

Professional
In all 4 GS events.
I was checking this info and I get some susprises, please let me note if I miss someone.

Laver.
Rosewall.
Connors.
McEnroe.
Gerulaitis (genious Vitas!).
Lendl.
Edberg.
Becker.
Courier.
Stich. :)))
Sampras.
Agassi.
Rafter.
Nalbandian.
Safin.

Note for avoid some comments: Players like Nastase or Borg played Aussie Open ONCE!
 
Last edited:

woodrow1029

Hall of Fame
Chang (maybe). Not sure if he ever made the semis of Wimbledon though. He lost late in the tournament to Sampras once, but that may have been the QF.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
i´m surprised that Becker reached the semis at roland garros. was that the year he lost to Pernfors?
 

Q&M son

Professional
Some notes, besides the mention on Borg or Nastase in Aussie Open...
Connors not played RG from 74 to 78, maybe his greatest years on clay.
Kodes also never played Australian Open.
Mc Enroe played only 5 times the Australian Open.
 

Q&M son

Professional
Wilander and Vilas didn't got Wimby SF, but they were in QF twice at least (Mats 3 times)

Ashe won AUS OPEN, WIMBY & USO and got QF in RG 1971
 
Last edited:

Q&M son

Professional
As Moose shows to me, there was a thread about it... How about before Open Era... Don Budge and Lew Hoad come easy to my head right now, help me here...
 

timnz

Legend
Boris made Roland Garros semi's 3 times

i´m surprised that Becker reached the semis at roland garros. was that the year he lost to Pernfors?
Actually he made it three times 1987, 1989 and I think (though I am not certain) 1991.

In 1989 he lost to Edberg. I think he lost to Agassi in 1991. 1987 I am not sure.
 
Really impressive list. Obviously winning Grand Slam is incredibly hard, and even making all 4 finals is rare. But, even making all 4 SFs is relatively rare. I would have thought more players achieved that milestone.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
In all 4 GS events.
I was checking this info and I get some susprises, please let me note if I miss someone.

Laver.
Rosewall.
Connors.
McEnroe.
Gerulaitis (genious Vitas!).
Lendl.
Edberg.
Becker.
Courier.
Stich. :)))
Sampras.
Agassi.
Rafter.
Nalbandian.
Safin.

Note for avoid some comments: Players like Nastase or Borg played Aussie Open ONCE!
I think the list could have been larger if the Australian was considered a top tournament during a period in the 1970's to 1980's. I'm sure the above mentioned Borg and Nastase would be there for example.

If we expanded to Pre Open Era with the transportation of today players like Tilden, Budge (who would be already on the list of course), Perry (same and Budge), Vines, Nusslein, von Cramm, Gonzalez, Kramer, Trabert and Hoad would be there.

Incidentally, off the top of my head you missed Tony Roche who was in the semi of all four during the Open Era. I'll try see if I can find some others.
 
Last edited:

Q&M son

Professional
I think the list could have been larger if the Australian was considered a top tournament during a period in the 1970's to 1980's. I'm sure the above mentioned Borg and Nastase would be there for example.

If we expanded to Pre Open Era with the transportation of today players like Tilden, Budge (who would be already on the list of course), Perry (same and Budge), Vines, Nusslein, von Cramm, Gonzalez, Kramer, Trabert and Hoad would be there.

Incidentally, off the top of my head you missed Tony Roche who was in the semi of all four during the Open Era. I'll try see if I can find some others.
Totally agree pc1. Totally.

About Roche I don't mentioned cause firstly the thread was made for open era players and I believe Roche get one SF in pre open era, I'm not sure anyway but I believe in your words now.

Then Moose shows 2 me a last year thread created by him (and linked here) when Roche was named, so I don't add Tony... but yes he must get in
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Another one is one of my personal favorites, Miloslav Mecir. Mecir was in the finals of the Australian and the US Open, losing to Lendl. He was in the semi of the 1987 French, again losing to Lendl and in the semi of the 1988 Wimbledon, losing to Edberg in five sets.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Yes!!! of course, Mustard told me to add him and Tom Okker! :)
I thought of Tom Okker who was so talented and extremely underrated on these boards. It's a pity he never won a major. He had everything except perhaps a huge serve. I feel his career record far exceeds many winners of majors like for example Patrick Rafter.
 

Q&M son

Professional
I thought of Tom Okker who was so talented and extremely underrated on these boards. It's a pity he never won a major. He had everything except perhaps a huge serve. I feel his career record far exceeds many winners of majors like for example Patrick Rafter.
Great player, agree about your words over Rafter
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Actually he made it three times 1987, 1989 and I think (though I am not certain) 1991.

In 1989 he lost to Edberg. I think he lost to Agassi in 1991. 1987 I am not sure.
that´s how your memory can play tricks on you:)i would have bet against it.
he is usually considered such a weak clay court player.
in the same way maybe, Lendl couldn´t play on grass but reached the final at Wimbledon nevertheless
 

kiki

Banned
Totally agree pc1. Totally.

About Roche I don't mentioned cause firstly the thread was made for open era players and I believe Roche get one SF in pre open era, I'm not sure anyway but I believe in your words now.

Then Moose shows 2 me a last year thread created by him (and linked here) when Roche was named, so I don't add Tony... but yes he must get in
Roche already won a major: 1967 Roland Garros.
 

kiki

Banned
Gorman never got past the R32 at the Australian Open.
I was refeering to Wimbledon or Roland Garros ( he made the semis in both, once even beating Laver¡¡¡).He was a great player from 1970-1973 or 1974.Also reached Masters SF, back in 1972.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
I was refeering to Wimbledon or Roland Garros ( he made the semis in both, once even beating Laver¡¡¡).He was a great player from 1970-1973 or 1974.Also reached Masters SF, back in 1972.
the op is looking for players who reached at least the semis in all 4 majors
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Not on Wimbledon :)
He played one of the best, if not the best grass courter ever.He beat Agassi at W, he won two Flushing meadows titles.Okker just isn´t at the same level.He would be comparable to guys like Todd Martin or Alex Corretja ( even if Okker was, IMO, a more talented player than Martin or Corretja. but never achieved really much)
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
He played one of the best, if not the best grass courter ever.He beat Agassi at W, he won two Flushing meadows titles.Okker just isn´t at the same level.He would be comparable to guys like Todd Martin or Alex Corretja ( even if Okker was, IMO, a more talented player than Martin or Corretja. but never achieved really much)
Kiki,

Respectfully Okker won over 50 tournaments in his career including the Italian. He was in the finals of the US Open in 1968. Rafter won a total of 11 tournaments in his entire career. That's a big difference. I like Rafter as a player but Okker to me was just a more skilled player and much faster also. Rod Laver himself thought Okker was an extremely gifted player. This is what Laver wrote about Okker in his book "The Education of a Tennis Player"--I think Tom (Okker) is going to be a great player who can mean as much to the game as Kenny (Rosewall) has. His phenomenal speed and reflexes would be enough to make him quite a good player even if his strokes weren't so sharp and his determination so firm. He's the best player to come out of Holland, faster than Hans Brinker on his silver skates, although he wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Later Laver writes--Tom's like me in that he can hit a big bounding topspin shot on the run for a winner, or pitch a topspin lob over the head of a man hanging at the net. He has these absolutely dazzling stretches, a wild man who makes you want to cry because everything he does is so utterly beyond you.

Arthur Ashe has written for certain stretches in any tennis year Tom Okker becomes the best player in the world.

I think Okker's main problem was that he was playing in a time with Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Vilas, Smith, Borg etc. But Okker was able to beat these players at big tournaments. He for example defeated Rosewall in the US Open semi in 1968, Newcombe at the French Open in 1969 and the Masters in 1973, Vilas at Wimbledon in 1978, Nastase at Wimbledon in 1978 (he lost to Borg eventually at the 1978 Wimbledon 6-4 6-4 6-4 which is better than Connors did), Smith at the French, Italian and Masters in 1973. He led head to head with a number of these players.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Kiki,

Respectfully Okker won over 50 tournaments in his career including the Italian. He was in the finals of the US Open in 1968. Rafter won a total of 11 tournaments in his entire career. Rod Laver himself thought Okker was an extremely gifted player. This is what Laver wrote about Okker in his book "The Education of a Tennis Player"--I think Tom (Okker) is going to be a great player who can mean as much to the game as Kenny (Rosewall) has. His phenomenal speed and reflexes would be enough to make him quite a good player even if his strokes weren't so sharp and his determination so firm. He's the best player to come out of Holland, faster than Hans Brinker on his silver skates, although he wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Later Laver writes--Tom's like me in that he can hit a big bounding topspin shot on the run for a winner, or pitch a topspin lob over the head of a man hanging at the net. He has these absolutely dazzling stretches, a wild man who makes you want to cry because everything he does is so utterly beyond you.

Arthur Ashe has written for certain stretches in any tennis year Tom Okker becomes the best player in the world.
Okker wa sindeed a good player, an excellent one and a top ten memember when he peaked from 1968-1974.He won important tournaments, yet no slam title.But he was one of the favorurites whenever a slam tournament was approaching.Excellent doubles player, one of the best of the 70´s, teaming up with different partners like Ashe,Riessen ( maybe his best partner) and late in his career, Wojtek Fibak.

Okker was a pretty smart player, great movement, good groundies and good volley- the flying dutchman as someone called him-.Able to be very competitive in grass (R/U at FH,Masters, SF at W) or clay (SF at FO) or carpet (SF at WCT).I have nothing against this guy.

But he was not at that level of the true great champions.He was a Vitas Gerulaitis with unferior results, since Gerulaitis won the Australian and WCT.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Okker wa sindeed a good player, an excellent one and a top ten memember when he peaked from 1968-1974.He won important tournaments, yet no slam title.But he was one of the favorurites whenever a slam tournament was approaching.Excellent doubles player, one of the best of the 70´s, teaming up with different partners like Ashe,Riessen ( maybe his best partner) and late in his career, Wojtek Fibak.

Okker was a pretty smart player, great movement, good groundies and good volley- the flying dutchman as someone called him-.Able to be very competitive in grass (R/U at FH,Masters, SF at W) or clay (SF at FO) or carpet (SF at WCT).I have nothing against this guy.

But he was not at that level of the true great champions.He was a Vitas Gerulaitis with unferior results, since Gerulaitis won the Australian and WCT.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this.:)
 
Well I think Laver was being disrespectful to Rosewall by making that statement about Okker. For starters, Laver was second to Rosewall in tennis achievement and didn't much like to face up to it. Rosewall was his greatest adversary and responsible for most of his great disappointments. The WCT Finals in 71 and 72 were classic examples. I think Laver believed his own PR. Well, for the record the 1962 Grand Slam didn't mean squat when you had Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, and so many others unable to compete. In open competition, Laver would have been lucky to scape into the world top 5 that year. Okker was never ranked in the top 3 in any year - Tommasi had him at 4 in 1968 and 1969 - so I think that remark was very flattering to Okker.
 

urban

Legend
Now Rino (not Rollo - does someone know him?) Tommasi isn't the only one who made a ranking. Some of the more popular and more widely accepted rankings had Okker as Nr. 3 in 1968 or 69. And if a statistical approach is asked for, a newer scientfic study by an Italian scientist has Okker as Nr. 1 in 1973. Also i do believe, that Laver wanted in now way to denigrate Rosewall, i haven't in fact ever heard a bad word about Rosewall from him.
 

kiki

Banned
Now Rino (not Rollo - does someone know him?) Tommasi isn't the only one who made a ranking. Some of the more popular and more widely accepted rankings had Okker as Nr. 3 in 1968 or 69. And if a statistical approach is asked for, a newer scientfic study by an Italian scientist has Okker as Nr. 1 in 1973. Also i do believe, that Laver wanted in now way to denigrate Rosewall, i haven't in fact ever heard a bad word about Rosewall from him.
There was a fierce rivalry between both great and short aussies.In his book, Laver accomplishes Rosewall as his greatest ever opponent, because generationally and historically it is just like that.Like Connors was Borg´s biggest rival, Lendl was Mac´s one, Edberg was Becker´s one, Agassi was Sampras one and Nadal is fed´s one.

He just said something like Rosewall was very mean and he was known on tour as " pockets".But this is a joke, not an offense, at least in my opinion.He was much more critical of Pancho Gonzales, whom he criticized being too egoistic and individualistic when the pros needed to stick together.

Laver is a humble man and has a natural easy going nature.He was not that close with Rosewakk that he was with, say, Emerson or Gimeno.But he fully respected him and considered Rosewall as the best pro player of the 60´s.

I haven´t heard Connors say that about Borg or Mac say that about Lendl, for example.
 

kiki

Banned
Well I think Laver was being disrespectful to Rosewall by making that statement about Okker. For starters, Laver was second to Rosewall in tennis achievement and didn't much like to face up to it. Rosewall was his greatest adversary and responsible for most of his great disappointments. The WCT Finals in 71 and 72 were classic examples. I think Laver believed his own PR. Well, for the record the 1962 Grand Slam didn't mean squat when you had Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, and so many others unable to compete. In open competition, Laver would have been lucky to scape into the world top 5 that year. Okker was never ranked in the top 3 in any year - Tommasi had him at 4 in 1968 and 1969 - so I think that remark was very flattering to Okker.
Doug.I said I respect your admiration for Rosewall, which I share in big part.But you are a bit too biassed in defending him; laver was his peer and had great respect for Rosewall, as he has written countless times.The Okker comment was in a given context, and it seems to me normal that a seasoned pro like Laver, would be somewhat " welcoming" tot he elite group newcomers such as Ashe and Okker.He certainly wouldn´t say that of Newcombe and Roche, whom Laver never really liked ( but respected).

I posted that Rosewall has the nicest shot that I have ever seen on a court, and Laver is the best player I´ve seen on a court.We can debate it, but it is not a biasse comment.
 

urban

Legend
Kiki, i think, Laver referred to a Rosewall quote, who once said, when asked how his weight had changed during his pro years: "Maybe now i am a bit heavier in the pocket."
 

kiki

Banned
Kiki, i think, Laver referred to a Rosewall quote, who once said, when asked how his weight had changed during his pro years: "Maybe now i am a bit heavier in the pocket."
Yes, I know.But it was not just Laver to call " pockets" to Rosewall.The pro tennis world of the 60´s was a big family of 10-12 members, and they knew each other perfectly well...so, there must be a motive for all his peers calling Rosewall that...
 
Rosewall was teased because he was careful with his money. I think there was a joke that basically claimed Ken still had the first dollar he ever earned. He was I think also treasurer of something similar for the early player group. Other guys would drink or party to excess, but not Kenny.
 
And it is my impression, borne over many years, that Rod Laver did downplay Rosewall's record. Unfairly. Rosewall was the only guy - the ONLY one - to take Rod down in an open Major final. He was the guy who took him down in the first two WCT Finals - titles Laver expected to win.

The only two US Pro finals Laver lost in the pro years to 1968, he lost to Rosewall. And at the French Pro finals, it was Rosewall who stopped Laver in 1963, 1964 and 1965. In fact, in pro and open Major finals, it was ONLY Rosewall that defeated Laver in finals. For Laver to suggest Okker would be more significant than Rosewall is like Nadal suggesting Murray will be more significant than Federer. Based on what exactly, given that both top 5 players did not, and have not, won a Major.

Nobody should think that Laver and Rosewall were friends. They were not. They were rivals who both happened to be Australians with exceptional tennis ability. Rosewall was closer to Fred Stolle, John Alexander, Newcombe and Roche. Laver and Emerson yes, but they had a common history as well.
 
Top